Loading...
July 14, 2004 Regular Meeting 008 A Closed Session of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, July 14,2004 at 4:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice Chairman Barbara E. Van Osten; Bill M. Ewing; Gina A. Forrester; W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; and Lynda J. Tyler. ABSENT Gary W. Dove (Arrived at 4:04 P.M.) CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. BOARD RETIRES INTO CLOSED SESSION Vice-Chairman Van Osten moved that the Board of Supervisors convene in Closed Session pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (1) to discuss Personnel Matters, (5) to discuss an Economic Development Industrial Prospect, and (7) for consultation with Legal Counsel. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Forrester and passed by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Barbara E. Van Osten Gary W. Dove Bill M. Ewing Gina A. Forrester W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Lynda 1. Tyler Aye Aye Absent for vote Aye Aye Aye Aye (Supervisor Dove arrived at 4:04 PM, prior to the Board entering the closed session room.) BOARD WITHDREW FROM CLOSED SESSION Upon a motion made by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Board withdrew from closed session. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye BOARD RECONVENED INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Board Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 L___~ 009 reconvened into Regular Session and certified that to the best of each Board members knowledge only Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711 A (1) Personnel Matters, (5) Economic DevelopmentIndustrial Prospect, and (7) consultation with Legal Counsel were discussed. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the Regular Meeting to order at 5:10 P.M. INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Supervisor Smith led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED AS AMENDED Administrator Riley advised that Tab S - Conditional Use Permit #10-04 of Charles D. Brown was pulled from the agenda as the property was not posted properly. He further advised that the following two items were added under County Officials: Appointment of an Interim Subdivision Administrator and Zoning Administrator; and scheduling a worksession to discuss the Rural Areas Study. Upon a motion by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board adopted the agenda, as amended, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley suggested the following tabs for approval under the Consent Agenda: 1. Parks & Recreation Committee Report - Tab J; 2. Personnel Committee Report - Tab K; Upon motion by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Consent Agenda Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 010 was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye MINUTES-APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Ewing, the minutes from the June 9, 2004 Regular meeting were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS CAROLYN GLAIZE APPOINTED TO SERVE ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE TO REPLACE JAMES HOCKMAN It was noted that Chairman Shickle appointed Carolyn Glaize to fill the unexpired term of James Hockman, who resigned. This term expires January 14, 2005. NOMINATIONS FOR BOARD OF EOUALIZATION DISCUSSED Administrator Riley advised that he would like to have the Board's nominations by October. REAPPOINTMENT OF DR. NED M. CLELAND AS COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE FREDERICK-WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY- APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board reappointed Dr. Ned M. Cleland as County Representative to the Frederick-Winchester Service Authority. This is a three year term, said term to expire August 31, 2007. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye REOUEST FROM DIRECTOR OF WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT FORFY Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 011 2004 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR FY 2004 EXPENSE - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that this request was before the Board because the Airport Authority exceeded its forecasted fuel sales and had to purchase extra fuel prior the close of the fiscal year. This appropriation would cover the prior fiscal year's expense. Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Board approved the request from the Director of Winchester Regional Airport for FY 2004 supplemental appropriation in the amount of$22,615.00 to cover FY 2004 expense. Supervisor Ewing advised that he would have to vote no because he questioned the process that brought this request to the Board rather than Finance Committee. Chuck Wilmot, Chairman ofthe Airport Authority, explained that the fuel was purchased and received prior to the June 30th close of the fiscal year. There being no further discussion, the above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye REOUEST FROM THE SHERIFF FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO COVER FY 2004 EXPENSES AND CARRYFORWARD OF FUNDS (DARE PROGRAM/SEIZED ASSETS)-APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that the staff memo accompanying this request was self explanatory. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Board approved the request from the Sheriff to transfer $12,000.00 to cover FY 2004 expenses for vehicle maintenance, request to carry forward funds from the DARE program and seized assets in the amount of $10,817.19, and request to carry forward the remaining balance in ADP Equipment in the amount of$32,857.84. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 012 W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye REQUEST FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE FOR REFUND - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Ewing, the Board approved the request from the Commissioner of the Revenue for a refund or roll credits in the amount of $21,972.50 for TAG Aviation USA, Inc. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye MEMORANDUM AND RESOLUTION (#003-04) RE: 2004 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that this was a request for the Board to endorse this grant application, which would result in $201,697.00 coming to County Emergency Services. Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board approved the Resolution re: 2004 State Homeland Security Grant Program. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, VA that Gary A. DuBrueler, Director of Fire & Rescue, is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of a public entity established under the laws of the State of Virginia, this application and to file it in the appropriate State Office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance hinder the OJP, National Domestic Preparedness Office Grant Program(s) administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia. That, a public entity established wider the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereby authorizes its agent to provide the Commonwealth and to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) for all matters pertaining to such Federal financial assistance any and all information pertaining to these Grants as may be requested. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye CLARKE-F AUOUlER-FREDERICK- WINCHESTER (CFFW) REGIONAL JAIL COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT (RESOLUTION #002-04) - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Ewing, the Board approved the Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 013 Resolution to Approve a Comprehensive Agreement to Develop, Design and Construct a Work- Release Facility to Expand the Clarke-Fauquier-Frederick- Winchester Regional Adult Detention Center. WHEREAS, the Clarke-Fauquier-Frederick- Winchester Regional Adult Detention Center (hereafter referred to as the Regional Jail) is overcrowded, and public safety and efficient operations are deleteriously impacted by the inmate populations that exceed the design capacity; and WHEREAS, the jurisdictions that own and operate the Regional Jail are willing, with appropriate State partnership, to expand the Regional Jail to address public safety and operational requirements; and WHEREAS, the City of Winchester serves as the Regional Jail's fiscal agent; and WHEREAS, the Regional Jail has submitted to its member jurisdictions a draft of a Comprehensive Agreement to Develop, Design and Construct a Work Release Facility by and between Howard Shockey and Sons, Inc. and the City of Winchester.; and WHEREAS, this Agreement has been reviewed by both the County Attorney's Office to ensure legality of form, and by the County Budget Office for funding impact; and WHEREAS, the estimated maximum cost impact to Frederick County, if the project is terminated would be approximately $ 250,063.00, payable during FY 2005;and WHEREAS, any project cost in excess of$ 250,063.00 shall be submitted in advance to the Board of Supervisors for approval; and WHEREAS, any other changes in the form or substance ofthe Comprehensive Agreement shall be submitted, in advance, to the Board of Supervisors for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Comprehensive Agreement between the City of Winchester and Howard Shockey and Sons, Inc., to Develop, Design, and Construct a Work Release Facility to Expand the Regional Jail is hereby approved. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye DISCUSSION OF VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (V ACO) 2005 LEGISLATIVE ISSUES Administrator Riley advised that he had not received any information to date, but would be glad to put this on the August agenda, if the Board wished to forward potential issues to him. MEMORANDUMRE: STATUS OFCONSERV ATION EASEMENT AUTHORITY- COMMITTEE APPOINTED Assistant Administrator Tierney advised that the last time the Board discussed this issue there Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 014 was some concern expressed over what input and control the Board would have over this proposed authority. He went on to say that staff has put forth a proposal in which the Board would create a committee to determine how the proposed easement authority would function. Staff requested that the Board submit names of individuals to serve on this committee and to date only one name has been submitted. Assistant Administrator Tierney advised that the list of names submitted to the Board at its May work session was included in their agenda packet. He concluded by saying that it was staffs recommendation to create a committee to determine how the membership would be comprised and how the authority would function. Chairman Shickle suggested that the list submitted at the May work session including the one name submitted since then be the committee and the Board Chairman be empowered to add other members to this committee. Vice-Chairman Van Osten advised that she attended a meeting last week in Clarke County to discuss the process Clarke County went through when creating their authority. She was informed the Board that it took about 18 months. She went on to say that the suggested make up could be a farmer, developer, realtor, lawyer, planning commissioner, but noted that it was important for the Board to determine what type of members they want. Supervisor Tyler stated that the Authority members should not be individuals who want to put their land in easement. She advised that she had information regarding easement authorities, which she would like to have included in the Friday Board mailing. Supervisor Dove moved that the list of names included in the Board agenda packet be appointed as the committee to formulate the membership criteria and functions of the easement authority. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Forrester with an amendment that Bud Goode, Supervisor Van Osten's recommendation, be included as part ofthe committee. The committee members will be: Bud Goode, Jim Lawrence, Philip B. Glaize, Jr., Diane Kearns, Todd B. Lodge, C. Robert Solenberger, Richie Wilkins, and John Light. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda 1. Tyler Aye Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 .015 MARK CHERAN APPOINTED TO SERVE AS INTERIM SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Board appointed Mark Cheran to serve as Interim Subdivision and Zoning Administrator. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye SET DATE FOR JOINT WORKSESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND POLICIES SUBCOMMITTEE RE: RURAL AREAS STUDY-APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that staff had recommended several dates in August for a joint work session between the Board, Planning Commission, and Comprehensive Plan and Policies Subcommittee to discuss the Rural Areas Study. The Board set this work session for Tuesday, August 31, 2004 at 12:00 P.M. in the Board of Supervisors' Room. COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on June 15, 2004. Members present were: Charles Sandy, Steven White, Ronald Madagan, Michael Ruddy, Cheryl Swartz, Robert Hartman, Lynda Tyler. Submitted for Board Information Only: 1. Cosponsor ReQuest - Mr. Hartman moved to approve a request from the Maverick Softball Amateur Athletic Association for cosponsor status beginning in FY 2005-076, second by Mr. White. Motion carried 5-1 (Madagan opposed). PERSONNEL COMMITTEE - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Personnel Committee met on Wednesday, June, 2, 2004 with the following committee members present: Gina A. Forrester, Chairman, Verne E. Collins, Philip Farley, John R. Riley, Jr., Kris Tierney, and Debby Didawick. The following committee members were absent: Barbara Van Osten, Bill Still. The following Department Heads were present: Ed Straw snyder, Public Works Director, John Trenary, Building Official/Code Administrator. 1. Request from the Public Works Director and BuUdin!! Official to Reclassify Seven ('7) Inspection Staff Positions: Inspector II. Inspector III. Senior InsDector/Desil!:n Review Proposing to reclassify six (6) Inspector II positions to three (3) Senior Inspector/Design Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 016 Review positions and three (3) Inspector III positions; one (1) Inspector I position to Inspector II. TABLED for inclusion in FY 05/06 budget cycle. 2. Reauest from the Superintendent ofCFFW to Amend the Evaluation Process Policy Under the Personnel Policy Manual: Proposing amendment to address the evaluation process Section 7.2. TABLED. The Superintendent has withdrawn the request. 3. Such Other Business as May Come Before the Committee. Philip Farley stated the need for a consistent process for departments to submit reclassifications and new positions using a productivity standard. Discussion followed. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE - APPROVED The Frederick County Public Safety Committee met Thursday, July 1,2004. Committee members present were: Committee Chair Barbara Van Osten, County Administrator John Riley, Frederick County Fire & Rescue Director Gary DuB meier, Michael Hockman, Helen Lake, Bill Ewing, Carolyn Glaize, and Sheriff Williamson. Also in attendance were Dr. Bethany Cummings, LeeAnna Pyles, and Dr. William Shendow and Cindy Soltis of the John O. Marsh Institute for Government and Public Policy. James Hockman has resigned from the Committee. The following items were discussed: ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. Dr. William Shendow, Director of the John O. Marsh Institute for Government and Public Policy spoke about the Marsh Institute's Public Service Initiative: New Program, "Quad State Program of Emergency Preparedness". This program will serve as a catalyst for an ongoing regional effort to coordinate the preparation for a catastrophic incident in the quad state area. The two objectives of this program are to provide the quad state region with the shared information and the training of State Officials who are responsible for emergency management. They will develop a 6- course certificate program for emergency personnel. There will be a conference on August 5, 2004 that all committee members are invited to attend regarding this program. 2. Gary DuBmeler provided the Committee with a synopsis of the quotes received to develop an Internal Table Top Exercise for Frederick County which will provide an overview ofthe operational aspects during a disaster for the EOC staff and County Government. A quote by Telemus in the amount of $4,950.00 was received and accepted by the Committee. This will be presented to the Board of Supervisors as information only as the total is under $5,000.00. Mr. DuBmeler will be contacting Telemus to set a date when they can attend a committee meeting, at that time the next committee meeting will set. 3. Helen Lake discussed providing Frederick County citizens with an Emergency Preparedness Kit. With cost being an issue the following suggestions were made. . Contact Verizon and ask if a magnet could be placed on the outer cover of the phonebook with Frederick County emergency numbers listed. . Place County emergency information and contacts on the Sheriffs Office, Fire & Rescue, and Communications web site and add a link to the Virginia Emergency website. 4. John Riley provided the committee with a hand out "Supplemental Space Needs Study Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 017 for Renovation and Expansion of the Frederick and Winchester Judicial Center". This is an information item only. The City will facilitate a meeting to discuss the reutilization of available space. ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Dr. Bethany Cummings spoke of the grants available which will provide ADE's (Auto External Defibrillators) to public areas. She also mentioned that the number of grants available to the County are numerous if there is someone to research and administer them. Therefore the Committee would like to make a request to the Board of Supervisors to appoint a committee to look into the benefits involved in hiring a Grant Coordinator. This position would be responsible for all grant coordination, administration, processing and documentation involved with any County grants. John Riley stated that he would pass this onto the Personnel Committee. Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, seconded by supervisor Forrester, the Board authorized the Personnel Committee to look into the benefits in hiring a Grant Coordinator. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye 2. The Committee reviewed a resolution approving a request from AirCare, an EMS helicopters agency that has expressed interest in operating out of the Winchester Regional Airport. The Committee approved the resolution approving this request and forwarded it to the Board of Supervisors for consideration, with a recommendation of approval. (See Attached.) Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Ewing, the Board approved the Resolution Approving Request of AirCare to Operate from the Winchester Regional Airport. RESOLUTION NO.:OOI-04 WHEREAS, Frederick County has the medical facilities and expertise to deal effectively and efficiently with most non-trauma related emergencies; and WHEREAS, Frederick County recognizes that there are situations where seriously injured patients require transport to a trauma facility in order to receive necessary life saving treatment; and WHEREAS, AirCare, operated by Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., is an EMS helicopter agency that has expressed interest in operating out of the Winchester Regional Airport; and WHEREAS, the locating this service at the Winchester Regional Airport would significantly reduce the response to an emergency scene; and WHEREAS, there would be no fiscal impact to Frederick County as the operations costs would be the responsibility of each of the agencies; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds location of this service to be in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 018 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approves the request of AirCare to operate from the Winchester Regional Airport. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Meeting Date: The next meeting ofthe Public Safety Committee will be set at a later date. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE - APPROVED The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 8:00 a.m. All members were present except Robert Wells. The following items were discussed: ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Proposed Salarv Adinstments for Shawneeland Sanitary District Staff - Approved The committee reviewed and unanimously endorsed a proposal from the Director of Public Works to reclassify the salaries for the operators in the Shawneeland Sanitary District. The attached memorandum dated June 23, 2004, outlines the proposed reclassifications and corresponding salary increases. The reclassifications would occur in the Fiscal Year 2004/2005 budget without additional funding increases. (Attachment 1). Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Dove the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrest Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda 1. Tyler Aye ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. Carry Forward Requests The Director of Public Works presented a list of proposed carry forward requests to be incorporated in the Fiscal Year 2004/2005 budget. The attached memorandum dated June 24, 2004, outlines the requests and provides corresponding justifications. After discussing each item, the committee unanimously endorsed the proposed carry forwards which will be forwarded to the Finance Committee for their review and action. (Attachment 2). 2. Discuss Penalties and Fines for Erosion and Sediment Control Violations The Director of Public Works indicated that the staff is encountering increasing violations of the erosion and sediment control ordinances within residential subdivisions. The current ordinances allow us to impose penalties up to $100 per violation per day with a total maximum of Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 019 $3,000 per lot. However, imposing these penalties requires a great deal of documentation from staff as well as cooperation from the Commonwealth's Attorney's office to prosecute the offenders. These efforts may not be warranted for a $100 penalty. We are currently contacting the home builders in Frederick County to solicit their cooperation in achieving the goal ofthe erosion and sediment control ordinance without taking the penalty approach. If we do not see a marked improvement within the next 60 days, we intend to pursue the option of imposing fines which would require a change in the ordinance but would not be as cumbersome to impose. 3. Miscellaneous Reports a) Tonnage Report(Attachment 3) b) Recycling Report(Attachment 4) c) Animal Shelter Dog Report(Attachment 5) d) Animal Shelter Cat Report(Attachment 6) PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK CODE. BY REPEALING CHAPTER 56; BUILDINGS. NUMBERING OF AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 56; ROADS. NAMING OF AND BUILDINGS. NUMBERING OF. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO PLACE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE NUMBERING OF ALL STRUCTURES IN THE COUNTY AND THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ANY ROAD NAMES IN FREDERICK COUNTY WITH THE FREDERICK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that this proposed revised Chapter would replace the existing Chapter 56 - Numbering of Buildings. The changes arose out of the work program for the Department of Geographic Information Systems, in which it was the Department Director's goal to amend this Chapter to allow the Director of GIS to administer its provisions rather than the Planning Director, as the Department of GIS is charged with the responsibility of assigning building numbers and street names. It was noted during review of existing Chapter 56 that reference was made to the Frederick County, Virginia, Street Naming and Addressing System Principles and Criteria and Operational Manual, which provided the operational procedures for naming streets and addressing structures; however, the County Attorney informed the GIS Department that these provisions had no legal standing with regard to enforcement as the manual is not formally part of the County Code. Staff revised Chapter 56 to include the pertinent sections ofthe Operational Manual and forwarded these changes to the Code and Ordinance Committee for review. The Code and Ordinance Committee reviewed the proposed new Chapter 56 at its May 11, 2004 meeting and unanimously forwarded it to the Board recommending approval. The Board would hold its public hearing this evening, at the conclusion of which action by the Board would be Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 020 appropriate. Staff has reviewed the proposed changes and concurred with the Code and Ordinance Committee's recommendation for approval. Chairman Shickle called the public hearing to order. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board adopted the Ordinance Repealing Chapter 56, Buildings, Numbering of and Enacting New Chapter 56, Roads, Naming of and Buildings Numbering of Code of Frederick County. WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2019 ofthe Code a/Virginia, 1950, permits every locality to name streets, roads, and alleys; and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2024 of the Code a/Virginia, 1950, permits every locality by ordinance to require that each building that fronts on a right-of-way to be numbered and to display said number in a manner easily readable from the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the locality may adopt such rules and procedures necessary to ensure compliance with and enforcement of said ordinance; and WHEREAS, this Board finds it necessary and appropriate to require the naming of roads and the numbering of buildings within Frederick County; and WHEREAS, this Board finds that adoption of these amendments to be in the best interest of public health, safety, welfare, and convenience. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby repeal chapter 56, Buildings, Numbering of and enacting new Chapter 56, Roads, Naming of and Buildings, Numbering of, Code of Frederick County: ~ 56-I. ~ 56-2. ~ 56-3. ~ 564. ~ 56-5. ~ 56-6. ~ 56-7. ~ 56-8. ~ 56-I. ~ 56-2. ~ 56-3. & 56-4. S 56-5. ~ 56-6. CHAPTER 56 ROADS. NAMING OF and BUILDINGS, NUMBERING OF Intent. FiU {lose. When effectne. Nnmbe. !lydem establ;shed. Administt ation and edCol cenlent. Assignmedt of nnmbeu. Size and locat;oll of nnmbe. 5. F a;lnI e to comply, , iolations and penalties. Article I Naming of Roads Intent. Purpose. Definitions. General Road Naminfl Principles Requestinfl Approval for New Road Name. Requesting approval to chanfle Countv Road names. Article II Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 021 Numberim! of Buildim!s ~ 56-7. S 56-8. ~ 56-9. S 56-10. S 56-11. Number system established. Administration Assignment of numbers. Requesting approval for a buildinfl number. Size and location of numbers. Article III Enforcement ~ 56-12. Failure to comply; violations and penalties. [HISTORY: Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick 4-1 0-1985 (Ch. 6, Art. II, of the 1984 Frederick County Code). Amendments noted where applicable.] ARTICLE I NAMING OF ROADS ~ 56-1. Intent. This chapter is intended to promote the health, safety and general welfare ofthe public and to enhance the effective and efficient provision of emergency services to the citizens of Frederick County. This chapter is intended to accomplish the provisions set forth in S 15.1-29-1.1 3.1-796.94 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. ~ 56-2. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for a uniform, county-wide system for providing street names and assigning street address numbers to all dwellings, buildings and habitable structures in Frederick County, to assist fire and rescue service providers, law enforcement agencies, the United States Postal Service and other organizations in the timely and efficient provision oftheir services to the residents and businesses of the county. ~ 56-3. \Vhen effecti.e. fA,,,,:;/tllt::J 5 -(}41 T1.il> GI,ajJt....l ,,1. all :.,......U11l... ...ff......t~.... ujJuH~11lplcmcntatioll ofthe St1 u.:.tu1e-llwnbe1i1l& system, which Illay be aeeomplislKd ill phases, as determined by th.:. flaruling Dileetor Gt::og,uvl,icul I,,(u, fftuliu" S v~/f:;fft~ (GIS) Di, t::dul. [The numbering system was established in May 1995 and has been actively maintained; therefore, the effective provision is being proposed for removal from this chapter. ] ~ 56-3. Definitions. The followinr: words. terms. and phrases when used in this article. shall have the meaninfls ascribed to them in this section. except where the context clearlv indicates a different meaning: "Drivewav" means a private travelwav for vehicles. which provides access to a public street or road from a parkinfl space. flarafle. dwellinfl. structure. or use. "Drivewav Access" means a roadwav bv which motor vehicles mav enter or leave a tra(ficwav and limited to that portion that is entirelv within the confines of the trafficwav. "Parkinfl Lanes' means a paved or flravel shoulder with a minimum of eiflht (8) feet desir:ned for use as off-street parking. "Riflht of Wav" means land. propertv. or interest therein: usuallv in a strip acquired Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular ~eeting of 07/14/04 022 ~ 56-4. for or devoted to transoortation ourooses. "Roadwav" means that oortion of a hiflhwav imoroved. desiflned. or ordinarilv used for vehicular travel. exclusive to the shoulder. "Road" means that Dart of a trafficwav which includes both the roadwav and anv shoulder alonfl side the roadwav. "Trafficwav" means anv riflht-of-wav open to the public as a matter of right or custom for movinfl persons or orooertv from one olace to another. includinfl the entire width between orooertv lines or boundaries. General Road Naminfl Princioles A. Anv rif{ht-of-wav servinf{ four or more lots. residences. inhabitable structures. or businesses shall have a road name. Increased subdivision and develooment alonfl a orivate right-of-wav shall require the assif{nment of a road name when the number of addressable structures reach four or more. B. Anv Master Develooment Plan. Subdivision Plan. or Site Plan submitted for review bv the Department of Planninf{ and Development shall also be submitted to the Deoartment of Geoflraohic Information Svstems to review proposed road names and road name requirements. C. All road names shall have a road name sumx and shall have the meaninfl ascribed in this section: Allev - a narrow road between or behind citv buildings. (abbr. ALY) "Avenue"means a wide oublic suburban road that is heavilv traveled or tree-lined. (abbr. AVE) "Boulevard" means a broad road divided bv an island. tree-lined or landscaoed. (abbr. BLVD) "Bl!j1ass" means a four-lane road circling around a citv. (abbr. BYP) "Circle "means a suburban road that circles back uoon itself or curves into a dead-end. (abbr. CIR) "Court" means a sinflle short suburban cul-de-sac or dead-end road. {abbr. cn "Drive" means a maior suburban road with connector roads or a rural dead-end road. (abbr. DR) "Grade" means a rural road with a def{ree of increasing slope. importance. or use.{abbr. GR) "Hiflhwav" means a primarv state road connectinfl towns or cities. (abbr. HWY) "Interstate" means a primary road exiting between or connecting two or more states. (abbr. INT) "Lane" means a rural dead-end road with no other connectinfl roads. (abbr. LN) "Loop" means a road that circles back upon itself. "Overlook" means a rural road that has an elevated scenic view. (abbr. OLOOK) Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 023 "Pike" means a primary roadwav with high traffic and direct routinfl between towns and cities. "Parkwav" means a broad landscaoed road. (abbr. PKWY) "Place" means a oublic square. a suburban cul-de-sac. (abbr. PL) "Plaza" means a commercial multiole buildinfl oarkinfl lot access. (abbr. PLZ) "Road" means a secondary state-maintained throuflh-countrv connector between oikes. "Square" means a ooen area at the intersection of two or more roads. a parkinfl lot. (abbr. SQ) "Street" means a suburban through road. (abbr. ST) "Terrace" means an open cul-de-sac/parking lot around a landscaped island. (abbr. TER) "Trail" - means a rural road primarilv in a recreational communitv. (abbr. TRD "Turnpike"means a wide and modern rural road traversing large sections of land.{abbr. TPKE) "Wav" means a through road that connects two seoarate roads ~ 56-5. Requesting Approval for New Road Name. A. Anv individual landowner or developer prior to installing a new road name shall submit the followinfl to the Department of Geoflraphic Information Svstems: 1. A letter from the individual landowner or develooer with absolute control over the road riflht-of-wav{s) or a petition siflned bv at least 75% of the landowners who are in aereement with the road name request and who have access to said road. 2. A detailed map and/or plat{s) showinfl the location of the roadwav from its oriflin to its terminus. with locations of existinfl and proposed drivewavs. structures. and adioining properties with access to said road. 3. Three or more proposed names. in order of preference. and the exolanation or reasonine for the request and choice of road names. B. The followine restrictions shall applv: 1. Road names shall not be abbreviated. 2. Directional names such as north. south. east. or west shall not be acceoted. 3. Road names containinfl punctuation shall not be accepted. 4. Road names which contain the same first word or road names spelled similarlv or phoneticallv as a road name alreadv in use shall not be permitted. 5. Road names shall chanee at maior four wav intersections and/or disiointed seflments. 6. Road names and road name street siens that have not been approved and added to the Official Frederick Countv Street Name List shall be removed to avoid Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 024 conflict and confusion. ~ 56-6. Requestinfl afJproval to chanfle or remove County Road names. A. Anv request to chanr:e the official name of anv road within Frederick County. whether maintained orivatelv or bv the ViTf:inia Department of Transportation. shall submit the followinr: to the Deoartment of Geoflraohic Information Svstems: 1. A detailed map and/or olat(s) showinfl the location and present name of the road. 2. The oreferred road name and alternatives. 3. A siflned statement from a maioritv of at least 75% landowners whose property adioins the road statinfl the desire to have the road name chanfled. 4. Supportinfl/exolanatorv information statinfl the reasons for the requested chan r:e. B. The followinf{ restrictions shall applv: 1. Road names shall not be abbreviated. 2. Directional names such as north. south. east. or west shall not be acceoted. 3. Road names containinfl ounctuation shall not be accepted. 4. Road names which contain the same first word or road names spelled similarlv or phoneticallv as a road name alreadv in use shall not be permitted. 5. Road names shall chanfle at maior four wav intersections and/or disiointed seflments. 6. Road names for roads containinr: four or more addressable structures shall not be removed. C. When all of the requirements stated above have been fullv completed. the Deoartment of Geof{raphic Information Svstems shall forward a recommendation to the Board of Suoervisors for a final determination. D. The aoolicant for a road name chanr:e or removal shall be financiallv resoonsible for the replacement or removal of anv road name siflns associated with the approved request. ARTICLE II NUMBERING OF BUILDINGS ~. S 56-7. Number system established. This chaptcr shall Gstablish a t1nifollll, C0u11ty-w ;..1" add1G6" 11u11illeling 6j st"lll fV111Ulllbering all dwdl;l1/S", Luildin5s and h.rL;taLk 6hudu1"" ;n Predelick County and assi51lIllGnl of "ll"..1 ad.h"""",s on all stlGGts, avcntlGS and publ;" waY" ;11 tIlG Gowllyo P10peily "llall Le ntunbelcd in aGG01Jal1"'" with lit" gu;Jd;l1es set folth in thG Prcdclick COullly, '/;l/S;llia, Sh"Gl Nal11;ng a11J Add1essing System P1i11G;....!.." alld C;k1;a al1d Opelatiollal Mal1Ual, and the Predeliek County, Vilg;l1;a, Ma"tel Sheel Gu;Je and tile provisions set forth in this chart,,!. This article shall establish a uniform. county-wide address numberiml svstem for numbering all structures. whether residential. educational. reliflious. business. aflricultural. or commercial in use that is occuoied full or Dart time bv humans. Said address shall consist of a number and road name assigned to each structure. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 025 ~ 56-5. ~ 56-8. Administration and e.af'Ol cement. A. The rlathhll1:5 Dilecto, Geographical Information Svstems (GIS) Director or his designated agent is hereby designated as the agent responsible for the administration, implementation and enforcement of this chapter. D. TIt.:, agellt "hall ""tablish stleet address ntl:tlmClS ;.. aecolddr'"'' with the 1:5u~dclines set forihin thd'lCJ",;"k COUllty, '/ilg~ll~a, Sheet Naming and Addtcssi,ig Sptelll r'~ll"~pks allJ C~te,~a allJ Opelational Manual and tI,e f,,,d(,ljd, CVUllty, ,/~,g~ll~a, Mastel Sheet Guid(, and the pl0v~,,;vlI" set fv,tI, ~n th~s "lwptel, including as follows. 1. No ~u~IJ~..1S p(,u11it sl,all Le appwv ",d until a sh(,et address I'ttl1llbel hM 1:,""11 det('uu~ll"J allJ assigned as herein plO v id(,d. 2. No eCltificatc of oeeuPdr'''y "hall ~"~",,ucd until dr, a""~1:511ed addrcss numbCl has bceH pv"ted a" 1'''1\:';~1l plovided. The propelty ow.!e. "l,all be l('spvll,,~ble fo, afr;.h~llg the a6s;1:5I1"d add:.""" llumbe,,, alld removing airY different addl('5s HulllL"." ;r pI ('5(,,1(, Tl,,, initial cost and continued mailitellall"" or add,,,,,,, lltl:tllbclS sl,<'Ill L" the responsibility of 111(.. plupGf ty OWll\...<l. c. n"ll""fvdh, streel a.1J, """es shall be assigned b)' the ag(,nt as plO v ideJ 11"'''~1l tv (,ael, lot or parcel sh"wn on (,a(,h Il1a"l", d(,vdopnKlll plall (MDr) al,JJ\", "uLdivision plat plior to fi,lal appw v al onhe same, and a cop)' of th(, lH:i1lmel cd MDr a11&(ol subdi v iS~Vll pial shall Le 11.a;lItained by tI,,, a1:5",rt. B. Preliminarv street addresses shall be assigned bv the Geoflraphical Information Svstems (GIS) Director or his designated aflent as provided herein to each lot or parcel shown on each small lot subdivision plan and/or site plan prior to final approval of the same. and a copv of the numbered subdivision and/or site plan shall be maintained bv the aflent. C. No certificate of occupancv shall be issued until an assiflned address number has been posted as specified herein. ~ 56-6. S 56-9. Assignment of numbers. Sl,eet .1.1.1,,,,,,, llUll,L",,, "hall be assigned in aeeordane(, with the gl1iddilles sct f"rih in the Fl(,dCl~(,k COultly, '/;'1:5;..;a, Sl.""l NaminlS and Add,(,ssillg SySt(,111 r'~ll"~pk" allJ C,~l",~a all.1 Operational Manual and the I1rederick County, Virginia, Master Street Guide, unless, in the opinion 0[[11" a5"'ll, tI." ;l1t".""1,, vftll(, citi2:ens offled('llck COUfily dr" ~ettc, "e, v"J Ly 111~llv'111v.1~r;."al~vll to the SYSt('lll 01 ~hcn the circumstances dictate adjustments. Street address number shall be assiflned as follows: A. Whenever anv house. buildinfl. or structure is erected or located. it shall be the dutv of the property owner or developer to procure the correct number or numbers for said propertv and amx said numbers to all occupied structures. B. The applicant shall provide to the Department of GeOf{raphic Information Svstems measurements in relation to other properties or such landmarks bv plat as deemed necessary for the assignment of a valid address. C. The following provision shall applv: 1. For mobile home parks. mini-warehouses. and complexes with a main structure serving multiple structures accessed bv one entrance and owned bv one landowner shall be assiflned one number for the main structure with additional structures having a suffIX of apartment. unit. suite. or trailer (e.fl 1123 Willow. Suite 15). Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 I 026 2. Single structures with multiple occupants shall have one number for the main entrance with each occupancv assifmed the suffIX apartment or suite. 3. Small lot subdivisions shall have consecutive numbers assigned to each structure. Durinfl desifln phase. a preliminary number shall be assiflned: however. the official address shall not be assif!ned until the structure is erected. 4. Corner lots. in small lot subdivisions. with two or more possible named road frontafles shall be assiflned preliminary numbers for each street facing. Followinf{ the construction of the structure. a permanent number shall be assiflned from the road on which the front of the structure faces. 5. Alphabetical extensions shall not be used in the numberinfl of structures. 6. Structure numbers that have not been assigned bv the Department of Geographic Information Svstems shall be removed. S 56-10. Requestinfl approval for a building number. A. Anv individual landowner requesting a buildinfl number shall submit the followinfl to the Department of Geographic Information Svstems: 1. A house number request form. showinfl: a. Buildinfl/propertv owners full name. b. Current mailinfl address c. Full name of buildinfl occupant(s). d. Parcel Identification Number (P.LN. or Tax Identification Number) which is the 14-digit code on the propertv tax bill. 2. A plat showinfl the structure location. setbacks. and primarv access to the structure and roadwav. B. Followinfl receipt and approval of the request. the applicant will receive written notification from the Department of Geographic Information Svstems instructinf{ the landowner how the numbers shall be displaved. C. The landowner shall complete the bottom portion of the notification form and return it to the Department of Geographic Information Svstems to verifv the buildinf! number and/or notifY the agent of anv changes or corrections. ~ 56-7. 956-11. Size and location of numbers. A. Street address numbers for residences shall not be less than four (4) inches in height and shall be made of durable and clearly visible material. The number shall be conspicuously placed on, above, or at the side of the main entrance so that the number is discernible from the street. Whenever a building is more than fifty (50) feet from the street or when the entrance is not visible from the street, the number shall also be placed along a walk, driveway, or another suitable location so that the address number is discernible from the street. Where mailboxes are not affixed to the building, street address numbers shall be shown thereon in accordance with postal regulations. B. Street address numbers or letters shall be of a contrasting color to the background on which they are mounted. Script or written number are prohibited. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 027 C. All commercial and industrial structures shall display street address numbers of not less than eight (8) inches in height as follows: L... When possible, the number shall be disp layed over the main entrance to the structure. b.... There shall be no other wording or numbers within two (2) feet of the building number. D. Apartments, townhouses, shopping centers or other similar groupings where only one (I) number is assigned shall display such a number at the main entranceway. Said address numbers shall have a minimum height of eight (8) inches. N LUHbets [01 indi vidual tlnits 01 cstablii.lull'-'lIts witllin the cVlllplex shall be displayed VB, "bove 01 tv the 6iJ" vfthe main JVVl way of cach unit 01 cst.mI;~]llllellt. Usinf! standard three (3) inch numbers. individual aoartments. suites. or units within the comolex shall have unit numbers disolaved on. above. or to the side of the main doorwav of each unit or establishment. Article III Enforcement ~ 56-8. ~ 56-12. Failure to comply; violations and penalties. A. Whenever the agent has reason to believe there has been a violation of any provision of this chapter, he shall give notice of such violation to the person failing to comply and order said person to take corrective measures within thirty (30) days from the date of notification. B. If such person fails to comply with the duly issued order, the agent shall initiate necessary actions to terminate the violation through criminal and/or civil measures. C. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be punishable by a maximum fine of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) Or by imprisonment for not more than twelve (12) months, or both such fine and imprisonment. Subsequent to the thirty-day period following notification of violation, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. The above ordinance was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE: CHAPTER 158. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC. ARTICLE II. STOPPING. STANDING. AND PARKING: BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 158-6.1. BEGGING OR SOLICITING ALMS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. ETC.; AND SECTION 158-6.2.S0LICITATION TO PERSONS IN MOTOR VEHICLES PROHIBITED. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO ADDRESS BEGGING OR SOLICITATION WITHIN FREDERICK COUNTY. - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that this proposed amendment was drafted to address staff concerns and citizen complaints arising from individuals setting up in public rights-of-way for the purposes of soliciting money from people in vehicles. One of the major problem areas is the Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 028 intersection of Routes 50 and 522. The proposed amendments make it unlawful to solicit within public rights-of-ways and to solicit to persons in motor vehicles. The Code and Ordinance Committee felt this provision was appropriate for inclusion within Chapter 158 - Street and Parking, Article II, Stopping, Standing, and Parking. The Committee reviewed several drafts of proposed panhandling legislation before finally approving this version. The Committee unanimously forwarded these amendments to the Board recommending approval. The Board would hold its public hearing this evening, at the conclusion of which action by the Board would be appropriate. Staff reviewed the proposed changes and concurred with the Code and Ordinance Committee's recommendation for approval. Supervisor Tyler asked if there was a way for the volunteer fire companies to conduct their boot drives, etc. in light ofthis provision. Administrator Riley advised that the County would work with legitimate organizations such as volunteer fire companies. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board adopted the Ordinance Amending Code of Frederick County, Chapter 158, Article II, Stopping, Standing, & Parking re: Begging and Soliciting in Public Rights-of-Way and to Persons in Motor Vehicles. WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2028 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, permits every locality to regulate and control the operation of motor and other vehicles and the movement of vehicular and pedestrian travel on all public rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, this Board finds it necessary and appropriate to prohibit certain activities within the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, this Board finds that adoption of these amendments to be in the best interest of public health, safety, welfare, and convenience. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, thattheFrederick County Board of Supervisors hereby amend Code of Frederick County, Chapter 158, Article II, Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding the following new sections: Q 158-6.1 Beflflinfl or so/icitinfl alms in public riflhts-of-wav. etc. It shall be unlawful and a class 4 misdemeanor for anv verson. whether able-bodied or not. to be'iJ or solicit monry or other thin'iJs of value. in or uvon the roads. streets. or allevs of the county. or those rights-of-wav deshmated as hi!Zhwavs for law enforcement purposes onlv. o 158-6.2 Solicitation to versons in motor vehicles vrohibited. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 029 A. It shall be unlawful for anv person to solicit or sell to persons in motor vehicles. from a stand or otherwise. in public rif!hts-of-wav or those riflhts-of-wav desif{nated as hiflhwavs for law enforcement purposes onlv within Frederick Countv: in such a manner as: 1. To interfere with. impede. or hinder the free passafle of vehicular traffic. 2. To harass another member or members of the public. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 158. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC: ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS: SECTION 158-1. STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CODE ADOPTED: ARTICLE II. STOPPING. STANDING. AND PARKING: SECTION 158-4 GENERAL RESTRICTIONS: SECTION 158-5. PARKING METERS. 158-6. FIRE LANES AND HYDRANTS: ARTICLE III. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES: SECTION 158-14. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN AND DISPLAY LICENSE AND FOR DISPLAY OF EXPIRED LICENSE: AND SECTION 158-15.1. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: EFFECTIVE DATE. THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IS TO INCORPORATE UPDATES TO THE STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CODE AND TO ENABLE THE COUNTY TO MORE EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE ORDINANCES COVERING PARKING ISSUES AND FINES. - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that these proposed amendments pertained to the adoption of a new Frederick County Parking Violation Form, which would enable the County to better enforce a more comprehensive set of parking related ordinances. In order to accommodate and support the new Parking Violation Form, it was determined that additional sections ofthe State Uniform Traffic Code, State of Virginia, must be adopted. Those sections included: A. Chapter 12.1 - Parking for Persons with Disabilities; B. Chapter 6 - License Plates, Generally; C. Chapter 10, Article 21 - Safety Inspections. Along with incorporation ofthe State Code provisions, changes were also made to a number ofthe fines in this ordinance. There was also proposed a repeal ofthe section pertaining to parking in front of the county courthouse as well as the provisions governing the enforcement of parking meters, as there are no metered areas within the County. The Code and Ordinance Committee reviewed these proposed changes at its May 11, 2004 meeting and unanimously forwarded them to the Board recommending approval. The Board would Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 030 hold its public hearing this evening, at the conclusion of which action by the Board would be appropriate. Staff reviewed the proposed changes and concurred with the Code and Ordinance Committee's recommendation for approval. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Ewing, the Board adopted the Ordinance Amending Code of Frederick County, Chapter 158, Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, General Provisions; Article II, Stopping, Standing, and Parking; and Article III, County Vehicle Licenses. WHEREAS, S 46.2-1313 ofthe Code a/Virginia, 1950, as amended, permits localities to adopt and incorporate by reference chapters and sections of Title 46.2 Motor Vehicles; and WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed revisions and amendments will enable the County to more effectively enforce a more comprehensive parking ordinance; and WHEREAS, this Board finds that adoption of these amendments to be in the best interest of public health, safety, welfare, and convenience. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby amend Code of Frederick County Chapter 158, Article I, General Provisions, and Article II, Stopping, Standing, and Parking by adding the following new provisions and repealing and enacting the following amendments: VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC CHAPTER 158 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS [Amended 12-9-1992; 9-8-1993] ~ 158-1 State Uniform Traffic Code adopted. [Amended 7-13-1994] A. Pursuant to the authority and provisions of S 46.2-1313 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the following chapters and sections of Title 46.2, Motor Vehicles, of such code are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in this chapter and made applicable within Frederick County, and by this reference any future amendments to the code are hereby adopted and incorporated in this chapter and made applicable in Frederick County as ofthe effective date of such amendments: 1. 46.2-300, Driving without license 2. 46.2-301, Suspended or revoked license, 3. 46.2-302, Financial responsibility. 4. 46.2-346, Prohibited use of driver's license. 5. 46.2-347, Fraudulent use of driver's license. 6. 46.2-348, False statements in application. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 031 7. 46.2-349, Unlawful to commit violation. 8. 46.2-350, Penalty. 9. 46.2-362, Appeals. 10. 46.2-707, Operating uninsured motor vehicle. 11. 46.2-715, Display oflicense plates. 12. 46.2-722, Altered or forged license plates. 13. 46.2-800.1, Riding animals on highway. 14. 46.2-801, Application to drivers of all vehicles. 15. 462.-802, Drive on right. 16. 46.2-803, Railroad intersections. 17. 46.2-804, Highway lanes. 18. 46.2-805, Lane direction control signs. 19. 46.2-806, One-way roads. 20. 46.2-807, Rotary traffic islands. 21. 46.2-808, Controlled access highways. 22. 46.2-811, Coasting. 23. 46.2-812, Driving more than thirteen hours. 24. 46.2-813, Occupied towed trailers. 25. 46.2-814, Safety zone. 26. 46.2-816, Following too closely. 27. 46.2-817, Disregarding signal by police officer. 28. 46.2-818, Stopping vehicle of another. 29. 46.2-820, Right-of-way at intersection. 30. 46.2-821, Stop and yield right-of-way. 31. 46.2-822, Right-of-way at traffic circles. 32. 46.2-823, Forfeiture of right-of-way. 33. 46.2-824, Right-of-way at "T" intersections. 34. 46.2-825, Yield right-of-way. 35. 46.2-826, Stopping before entering highway. 36. 46.2-828, Funeral right-of-way. 37. 46.2-829, Law enforcement and emergency vehicles. 38. 46.2-830, Obey signs. 39. 46.2-830.1, Same where driver sleeping or resting. 40. 46.2-831, Unofficial signs prohibited. 41. 46.2-832, Injuring signs. 42. 46.2-834, Signals by law officers. 43. 46.2-835, Right turn on red. 44. 46.2-836, Left turn after stopping. 45. 46.2-837, Passing vehicles in opposite direction. 46. 46.2-838, Pass when overtaking vehicle. 47. 46.2-839, Passing bicycle or moped. 48. 46.2-840, Horn signal when overtaking vehicle. 49. 46.2-841, Pass on right when overtaking. 50. 46.2-842, Right-of-way to be overtaking vehicle. 51. 46.2-842.1, Same on divided highway. 52. 46.2-843, Limitations on same. 53. 46.2-844, School bus. 54. 46.2-845, U-turns. 55. 46.2-846, Position and turning at intersection. 56. 46.2-847, Left turns by bicycles and mopeds. 57. 46.2-848, Required signals. 58. 46.2-849, How signals given. 59. 46.2-850, Change of course after signal. 60. 46.2-851, Signals prior to moving. B. Chaoter 6: ill Article 9 in its entirety (License Plates. Generallv). Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07114/04 032 B. C. Chapter 9 (1) Article 7, in its entirety (Reckless Driving). (2) Article 8 in its entirety (Speeding). (3) Article 9 in its entirety (Railroad Crossings). (4) Article 10 in its entirety (Stopping on Highways). (5) Article 12 in its entirety (Bicycles). (6) Article 13 in its entirety (Motorcycles and mopeds). (7) Article 15 in its entirety (Emergency Vehicles). (8) Article 16 in its entirety (Pedestrians). (9) Article 17 in its entirety (Legal Procedures or Requirements). €:- D. Chapter 10: (1) Article 1 in its entirety (Vehicle Equipment Safety). (2) Article 3 in its entirety (Lights and Turn Signals). (3) Article 4 in its entirety (Tires). (4) Article 5 in its entirety (Exhaust System). (5) Article 6 in its entirety (Windshields and Windows). (6) Article 7 in its entirety (Horns, Sirens, and Whistles). (7) Article 8 in its entirety (Suspensions). (8) Article 9 in its entirety (Brakes). (9) Article 11 in its entirety (Paint and Lettering/School Buses). (10)Article 12 in its entirety (Safety Belts). (ll)Article 13 in its entirety (Child Restraints). (12)Article 20 in its entirety (Loads and Cargoes). (13)Article 21 in its entirety (Safetv Insoections). B. E. Chapter 12: (1) Article 1 in its entirety (Abandoned Vehicles). (2) Article 2 in its entirety (Immobilized Vehicles). (3) Article 3 in its entirety (Trespassing Vehicles, Parking and Towing). F. Chaoter 12.1: Parkin!! for Persons with Disabilities. ARTICLE II Stopping, Standing, and Parking ~ 158-4. General restrictions [Amended 7-14-2004] A. Double-parking. It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle in the street or highway alongside another vehicle parked at the curb or at the edge ofthe street or highway, it being the purpose of this subsection to prevent double-parking. Any person violating this subsection shall be punished as provided in Article 1. The fine shall be the maximum allowed bv law. as determined bv the courts. D. ratling on pavement ill [1011t of (,OWt11UU"". It~" uulavv[ul fU1 auy person to p1l1k any motor \I"Ll,l" 011 tLG pav\..tluGut ~1l flUllt uf HI"" vvuuty \.JvulthCu6G. ALl] fh."'l,,Ol1 v~oldt~l1o t11~" sttbscction shall b~ pttuish~d as pIO v i,kd in At tkk 1. ~ 158-5. P.l:lkin~ metelS A. D~finitions. POI the ptUpos~ of this section, tlK follo~ini5 1.:.1111" "hall have the l1leill1~Ub" ~uJ~\.;db...J. r ARKn~G METER A mGGhauiGal dGviGG 10G.tlGd tlpon a public "hea, ,,~devvall 01 pul,l;" p1a"e 1egula..Iy de,,~guateJ a~ a pilll~ug 1ud"1 .wu", vvI1~,,11 J"v~,,~ is Su "unstItlcted as to I~cord a certain ntlmber of minute" by the use of a clock meehalli~m fvI the pU1j'Jo~e of Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 033 dd"uulrl~ue the p.:.dod of tinl" fOI w 11~"h park~ue prl v lkg.:.s may 1" "xt"uJ"J lo tin:; p,,"son dcposltlr1g a ,,01r1 tI",,"elu. B. Constr u"t;vn vf worJ" "pemry", "ni.:.kd", alld "d~111"". a11d "qual tel". As tls.:.d ~ll lLis f d d " " " . k I" d "d' " d " " 1 H b d fi """ lon, lG ~or s P':'llIlY , lU" e , au 1m.:., an quai tel s 1a "GOu"true to re er to Hi':' 01:t"-,,elit "vin oftlK Unit.:.d Stat"", tI,G [; v "-,,ent w~u ofth.:. Ul1itcd Stat':'6, allJ lh.:. tGu- Gent coin of H,,, ThiltcJ State, A.Ild the twenty-fhe cent (0;11 of the United States, l""ped~ vdy. C. '.\'11"'u pIOv isions of this S':'Gt~Vll al" appliGa~k tv parking. TIlG pro v 16~vll" of th~" ""d~ou shall apply to parLug ~u tile parkilig lll.:.tcr zon.:. p1Uv~d.:.d fVl ~u Subs"d~vn D only bct~.:.w the hotlrs of 9.00 a.rh. ami 5.00 p.m. uu all days, .:.xccpt Stu1days, N"w Y"ar'" Day, M''11101~al Day, IudcpendcnGe Day, Labol Day, Thar.k"e~ v il:tg Day, and Clnistmas Day. D. D",,~gllatioll of parking md,," LUll':'6. r arLug 111"'[..,1 ",ones shall bc as foUo IV 5. Adda:OIlAI ",(Mes. Such addit;ol1al pal king metel zones iliA] flolll t;lue to tillle be established by 01 dinance ('II 1 (;.\olution of the BOA. d of Supen isolS. 1. Th" FiaLa. thal """ laIn d"'''~euated arId marked se.:tion of au al"a oftllG "uwtllvuse pluperty kllo~n as HK "rl.lL,a", w;tI,inmark"J LOulldar~",,,. 2. Additional zones. Stich additloual pal1.ing 111d,," LOrK6111ay flUm time to tim.:. b.:. .:.stabI1611"J 1y ordluarl"" uI Iesolution ofthc Board of SUP':'l V;"Ul". E. Dcslgnatlou uf parking met':'l spaces. The County of F 1 edel kk Sll(,l~ff Vftll~ "oulily "Ilall hav':' ];11"" vr mark;ue" painted 01 pla""d upon thc swfaee oftlK pav.:.m':'llt ~u th" parkillg meter ZOlKS pro v ided for in Sab6"d~vll D rOl th.:. PUl pv"" vf des~guat~ue tll" pal king spaces auJ ;lId~eatlng tll" ar1ele at Wll~"ll vehides ar.:. to be palkcd.. TIK parkll1g "pa""" ,,0 designat.:.d shall, for tlK PUlfl06" vftl,;s seetlor1, eou"t~tutc parkilig 111..,["" spaces. F. Installation of parking m.:.t':'ls, signals M tv u"" vf park~ug 111d,," "paGe genelally. P arLue md':'l" "Ilall 1", in6tall",J adjacent to each pal king meter spae.:. d.:.signated as PlOy ;d"J ;11 Subs.:.et;vlI E arId shall 1G pla""J upon what wvuld ~e considered thc etllb immediately adjac.:.nt to the parking m.:.t':'l spae.:. in qu.:.stioll. Ea"ll palklng md"" "Ilall "II0w or dIsplay 1y a sIgnal wlldlM VI uot the parking meta space adjacent to such met.:.r islcgally ill use. G. D\.Opvsit of eoil1 fOl parkIng time desired, overtime parking and display of ,,;gllo.l ;lId;""l;lIe UV\.-lt~lIJ"" paiklng. 1. Auy P"""Vll J"";lillg to pail. arlY vd~"k w~th;u a parking meter 6paGe a" J"'''~eudl",J and prOvided in Subsection E, shall deposit the proper coins for the time desIred as follow6. $0.01 $6.6S 01 Ol1e ll;ckel for each 12 minutes oftime desiled, $0.05 $6.16 01 one d;.ue 01 VB"" ll~",1.\.Il rVt \",ta""l. LUUl 24 luillUtt5 oftiiHG dGSjiGd, $8.2S 01 out qual tel f~)1 each houl of time desiI ed not to cxceed t~o nickels or one dime, and V11" J~111" ful two hOUlS oftime desiled two hom s maximum p.lI king. 2. If "Udl Vdl~d", "lldlll"'l1la~l park"d ~11 arlY "u"ll palk~l1e "11..,["" "pa"" fVl "u"ll k11etll ofti111':' that Hi':' 111.:.tcr shall ir1dleat.:. by a proper 6il;.11al that tile law ful park~lig flG1;od 11a" "Ap~l"J, "Udl Vdl~dl,:; "hall be eOli61deied a" park",J OV","t~111'" arlJ tll'" pdlk~l1e vf a vchiclc overtime shall be a viulation ofthis seetlull. II. F aY'll"'Jt vf f"" placqnisit.:. to pat king in pa1king meter space. It shall be unlawful rOl ally pel sun to park a vehicle in.my parking space dcsignated as prov ided in Subscetion E ~ithotlt payIng, the fc~ fhov~deJ fUl ~11 tll~" "",d~uu ~11 tll'" 11lal11""" t1""""~11 J""~e11dkJ ~11 t11~" "",d~U11. 1. re11111ttll1g v chIde to IG111a~11 park"J 101 kmgGl tilarl p,,"~vd fVl wll~"ll f"" pa;J. It sll.1:ll ~G u11lawful fVl arlY P"'""U11 tu p"'U11~t d Vdl~d", tu ""'l1la~l1 park",J ~11 d park~l1e lUckl "pa"", designated as plovided in Subsection D follonger than the period for which the fee was paid. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 034 J. Limitatiou~ vu tcuu~ vf OCCttpat;vu of pMking llleter Spa"". It shall 1.c ulllaw ful for any pel~VU to park Mry v chide in any p<11ticul<11 P<111.;II':; 1l1"t(,1 space designated as pwvidc.J iu Sttb~"di011 E fOl a P"l iod 10U5Cl than two hOurs in any thu;;<:;-houl pCliod. K. Mauu<:;l of p<111.illg vdli"k~ ill parking meter spaces. 1. Each ~ehide parked withiu a pal kin.:; ulder ~pace designated as provided in Subsection E ~llall be par1."J witLill tLe lines 01 markings painted 01 placed vu titG ~U1facc oftL" pavemcnt as provided in stich suL~<:;Gtion. 2. It ~11<l1l 1.e unlawful fVl ally P"'~VIl to park a vehicle in more than on<:; p<111.illg meter ~pa"" or in stich a manner as to intcrf"l" witil tile prVp"l ui>e of lllV'" tLdil one palkiu.:; mder Spa"",. No trucks 'hh;dl ",ould lequiIe mOle than one palking "'{lace 51..111 be parked in the Plaza parking meter 2:on<:; Hlat w ill take mVl" ~paGe tharl is allottcJ [vl vue passcng"l "a1. L. Defacing, inj tiling, etc., parking meters. It shall :.,,, u1daw fal [01 <111Y pel~'111110t authorized by the DvalJ vfSupeivi~vl~ tv JGfaee, injtlr", tall'p'" w ;th, upen or willfully break, destloy or impair tIl" u~"fulncss of any patking Illeter installed under the pl v v i~ivu~ of this section. Any person violating any vf Hl" pwvi~ions of thi~ ~uL~"divu ~llall, upOu "vuvi"tivu, :"e pU1ti~h"d :"y a [;u" uvt to cAcced $2,500 or imprisonment for not more thatl 12 months, 01 by both sdch fine MId imprisonm<:;ut. M. Stlmmons for parking violatio11s. 1. The Sheriff of the eOtlnty shall issue a summ011S to all ~iolators of th" P'111.iu5 regulativu~ applicable to p<11kiu.:; mdCl ",OllCS pl0 v idcd [or in Sl1bse"tivll D ~dt;llg fOl tll tile time aud d"t" ;~~ued, tile offense alleged to have bcen conunitted, the modd uf v chide involvcd and itsregist1ation numb,,1. Su"ll a ~uuuuvui> ulay be returned in persvu Vl :"y mail tv til" Sheliff s om"" COu.lt,)' 'f. eA5o.. e.'s Office within five days with the remittance of$l, as stated on sumInons other wise a warrant shall be issued again~t Ul" l".:;i~t"l"d VWUel ofUle vehide ill question, whidlshall be stated ~IJ tIt"" ~UHIlllOllb. 2. SUdl 5u1l11110rl5 6hall bc numbcr cd in C01l5c""ti v C or dcr and bc pr 0 v 1d"J W itIl a ~tu:b 1'1 hiGh shall bc r etai11ed by thdssuing officer. The Sheriff County TI easuI el, upon leeeipt ofUle 6unl1110n5 arid the une dollal remittdilGe as indicated on the summons, bLAll ;bbuG A J.CG(..;pt to thG off"GudGl 01 P(.,150H 5ubiJJ.;U;115 t1:.." balll(.., h.GGp;115 a COpy thereof. , and remit all collections to the Treasttler of the county within one month from reecipt of tile same, together with thc receipts, SullHlIon6C5, and 6t,,:"S. N. Di~pv~itivu vf fces collected flom p.l1king ll1ele16, ek. r<:;<:;~ wll<:;deJ fwm parking meters installed under the prov isions of this section, as well as rcmittdilGcs rllaJ.:- pU1~uaut tv Su1.~"div1l M, shall 1.e eledikJ tv Ul<:; 5<:;u<:;1<11 fU11J vf the county and deposited by the County T1ca5uler in thc 6aul" lI1a111'''' a~ tLat pl"~"I;:""d 1\.11 vther ('O(([lty IIlClllGy6. O. AiJ;l1':;, "t"., iu vivlativu vfthis SCCti011. It 6110.11 1." U111awful fvr arlY per SOli tv aid, .met, 01 assist in the v iolat1011 of diG pr 0 ~ isiolls of this section. P. Pellalty fOl v;olat;vu vf ~""tivu. Except as otIlel wise pro v ided ill this secti011, ally fl"l~VU v iolating any of the pIOv isions ofthis section shall, upon eonv iction, be ptlllished as pro v ided ;u A.ti"k I aud ~han pay thc co~t vf p1V~"""tivu [Vl "aell offellse. ~ 158.5.r. Other Parking Violations [Amended 7-14-2004J A. "'No pelSon shall pal k a lehide n ith;1l hfellty feet oUlle ;..telSedion of cnl b Hnes Iii, if nOlle, ft ith;il f.fteeil feet of the idte. ~e(,tiOil of pi opel ty lines at an intelsection of hi~h,,,,,) 5. B. Fal king Commu dal '/chides in Residential Zones Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 035 "'No pelSon shall palk any commelcial "ehicle, e.>:tept while loading 01 u.lloadin~, while in.ol.ed in consb udiol1 '~olk 01 while pel fOI min~ sel "ices, suth as I epaiI and/ol iu~talla:tion of equipment, within 01 along any public highway ofthe County whel e the land abuUid~ such highnay is classified a~ a Residential Di~t.id undel the Zoning Oldinance of the Connty. 1. FOI the pu.po~e of this sedion, a "Commelcial .ehicle" is any .ehide nith a uted capacity in excess of 1.5 tons 01 nith IHo.e than tno a..<les, 0) both. C. Falkil1g Yehide(s) withOut State License 01 State Inspection on IIighnay. "No pel son shall pal k a "ehide(s) ha"in~ no Cu.. e.lt State license 01 CUll ent State inspection Od any hi~hway 01 loadway in the County. A. D;-Parking Against Traffic. *With the exception of those streets desifmated as one-wav streets. it shall be unlawful for anv person to park a vehicle against tra(fic on the left-hand side of a street af.!ainst traffic. B. E-;- Enforcement. *The Sheriff is herebv authorized and directed to enforce this chapter and all rules. ref.!ulations and penalties herein related to parkin!!. The Sheriff or deputy shall attach to anv vehicle whose operator is in violation of anv of the provisions of this chapter a Notice of Violation indicatinf.! that such vehicle has been parked in violation of one or more of said provisions. C. Ii'; Violations Procedure. 1. Prior to the issuance of a warrant or summons for a violation of anv of the provisions of this chapter. such violation mav be disposed of bv pavment to the Office of the County Treasurer of the full amount of the fine provided for in Section 158-5.1.F.1. Ifpavment is not received within thirty davs . the fine will be increased bv Ten dollars ($10.00) for each outstandinf Notice of Violation of anv Countv ordinance after the issuance of a summons or warrant. 2. Anv person who mav be subject to a liabilitv under this chapter as a result of the issuance of a Notice of Violation. mav. prior to the issuance of a warrant or summons. notifY the Countv Treasurer of his or her desire to contest the issuance of the Notice of Violation. Upon receivin!! such notification. the County Treasurer shall certifY that alleged violation to the Countv General District Court to be scheduled for a hearin!! on a date certain. and notice of such hearing shall be fiven to the person contesting the violation. 3. A warrant or summons mav be issued for the prosecution of a violation of anv of the provisions of this chapter at anv time after thirtv davs from the issuance of the Notice of Violation. G. Fenalty. *Whoever violates anv of the provisions of Sections 158.1 throu!!h 158.1-5.1.D mav dispose of such violation bv pavment to the O(fice of the County Treasurer prior to the issuance of a summons or warrant. subject to the provisions of Section 158.27. FINES. t. FOI Double Falking the fine shall be $40. 2. FOI O.el time F alkil1~ the fille shall be $5. J. FOI FailuI e to display county decal the fine shall be $40. 4. FOI EApil ed F I ede. itk Count)' Sti,kel the fine shall be $40. 5. FOI FailuI e to display cit)', (,Otil1ty, 01 tOnl1 de,"l the fine shall be $40. 6. Fo) Falked ill II.indkllpped Zone the fine shall be $100. 7. FOI Violation of official hi~h",ay S;~.l the fine shall be $40. 8. FOl F al ked ,,;thin 20' of COI nel the fiue shall be $40. 9. FOI Stopping al1d ohst. tiding t. arE, the fine shall be $40. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 036 10. 11. 12. FOI pili king (\"Illlmel,;,,1 . ehide id I e~ident;"I...one the fine ~hall be $40. Fot No 'Ul1ent ~tate Iicen~e 01 in~pecti\"ln ~t;,kel tile hne shall be $40. FOI P,uking ll~"i..st tl aflie the h.ae ~hall he $25. ~ 158-6. Fire lanes and hydrants. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle in a designated fire lane or within 15 feet of a fire hydrant. Enforcement of the same shall be provided by the Fire Marshal and the Sheriff and/or his desir:nee. [Amended 1-24/1990; 4-28-1999] B. The penalty for violation of parking regulation. Penalty for violation of parking regulations pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be as follows: 1. For parking within 15 feet of a fire hydrant the fine shall be $25 $40. 2. For parking in a fire lane where indicated by adequate street painting, markers or signs the fine shall be $25 $40. C. In any prosecution charging a violation of this section proofthat the vehicle described in the complaint, summons, parking ticket, citation or warrant was parked in violation of this section, together with proof that the defendant was at the time the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Chapter 6 (S 46.2-600 et. Seq.), Code of Virginia, shall constitute prima facie evidence that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. [Added 4-282-1999] ARTICLE III County Vehicle Licenses ~ 158.14. Penalty for failure to obtain and display license and for display of expired license. [Amended 7-13-1994; 12-17-2002] A. It shall be unlawful for the owner or operator of any motor vehicle required to be licensed in the County under this article to fail to obtain and display the required County license or to display upon such motor vehicle any County license after its expiration date; provided, however, that a grace period ono days is granted from the date of purchase or acquisition of any motor vehicle, within which the owner or operator shall pay the license tax, fee or charge and obtain and display the required license on such motor vehicle. A violation hereof shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $250. A violation hereof may not be discharged by payment of a fine except upon presentation of satisfactory evidence that the required license has been obtained. Fines shall be the maximum allowed bv law. as determined bv the courts. ~ 158.15 Enforcement of Uniform Regional Compact for Cross-Jurisdictional Enforcement of Local Motor Vehicle Licensing Requirements. [Amended 4- 12-1995] Pursuant to the Code of Virginia, S 46.2-752K, as amended, and the Regional Compact for Cross-Jurisdictional Enforcement of Local Motor Vehicle Licensing Requirements entered into by Frederick County, the City of Winchester, the Town of Stephens City, the Town of Middletown, the Town of Berryville, the Town of Boyce, and the County of Clarke, any owner or operator of a motor vehicle or any other person required by law to obtain and display a valid local license by any jurisdiction which has entered into the Regional Compact for Cross-Jurisdictional Enforcement of Local Motor Vehicle Licensing Requirements ("participating jurisdiction") must display any such license while a motor vehicle upon which such license is required to be displayed is operated or parked (public street) within the boundaries ofthis jurisdiction. ~ 158.15.1 Violations and penalties; effective date. Minute Book Nnmber 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 037 A. A violation of 9 158.15 shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not morc than $250. Fines shall he the maximum allowed hv law. as determined hv the courts. 1. When the operator is the owner of the cited vehicle, such violation shall be discharged by payment of the requisite fine except upon presentation of satisfactory evidence that the required license has been obtained. 2. When the operator is not the owner of the cited vehicle, the violation may be discharged by payment of the required fine. B. Section 158-15 shall be effective on January 1, 1994. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shick1e Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #08-04 OF VIRGINIA EDWARDS. FORA COTTAGE OCCUPATION - PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 143 DARBY DRIVE (ROUTE 1524). AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 64G-2-3-151 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - APPROVED Planner I David Beniamino appeared before the Board on behalf of this application. He advised that this application was for a cottage occupation - photo studio. The property is zoned RP (Residential Performance) and is located in the Shawnee Magisterial District. He advised that the photographs would be digital, which meant there would be no chemicals used in conjunction with this business. There were no negative review agency comments and the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No signs associated with this conditional use permit will be allowed on the property. 3. No more than ten customers per week shall come to the residence in association with this conditional use permit. 4. Any expansion or modification of the facilities will require a new conditional use permit. . Chairman Shick1e convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shick1e closed the public hearing. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 038 Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board approved Conditional Use Permit #08-04 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #09-04 OF JAMES A. BAYLISS AND BARBARA V. BAYLISS. FORA COTTAGE OCCUPATION - REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2680 NORTHWESTERN PIKE (ROUTE 50 W) AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 52-A-56 IN THE GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - APPROVED Planner I Mark Cheran appeared before the Board on behalf ofthis application. He advised that this was a conditional use permit for a cottage occupation - real estate brokerage. The property is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and is located in the Gainesboro District. There were no adverse review agency comments. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and approved it with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than five customers at anyone time on site. 3. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements; and shall not exceed four square feet in size. 4. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new conditional use permit. 5. Up to two temporary employees allowed. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board approved Conditional Use Permit #09-04 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 039 PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #10-04 OF CHARLES D. BROWN, FOR A MOTEL/BED AND BREAKFAST. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 161 MCCARTY LANE (ROUTE 50 EAST), AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 65-3-8 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - REMOVED FROM AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #11-04 OF DOUGLAS LOWELL - COUNTRY TREASURES, FOR AN ANTIOUES SHOP. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4850 FRONT ROYAL PIKE (ROUTE 522 S) AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 94A-I-3-1 IN THE OPEOUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - APPROVED Planner I Candace Mills appeared before the Board on behalf ofthis application. She advised that this was a conditional use permit for a cottage occupation - antique shop. The property is located in the RA (Rural Areas) District in the Opequon District. There were no negative review agency comments and the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered site plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County; this includes landscaping requirements per g165-27E of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. All identified improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of a business license. Additional landscaping shall be provided to enhance the commercial corridor of Front Royal Pike. This landscaping shall be in addition to what is required by S 165- 27E of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. 3. Signage shall be limited to one illuminated free-standing business sign, not to exceed 50 square feet in area and ten (10) feet in height, along the frontage of Front Royal Pike (Route 522S.). 4. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited. 5. Any expansions, modifications or changes of use shall require approval of a new conditional use permit. Supervisor Dove asked why the landscaping requirement was important. Planner I Mills responded that staff believed that this commercial use, although located in the RA (Rural Areas) District, should conform to the landscaping requirements of commercial uses in the B-2 (Business General) District. Chairman Shickle asked what would prevent any commercial uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District. Planner I Mills responded that many of the commercial uses are not permitted uses within the R-A District. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 040 Boyd Matthews, Shawnee District, advised that he was concerned about the entrance into the property off of Route 522. There being no further public comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Board approved Conditional Use Permit #11-04 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye The Board recessed at 6:35 p.m. and advised that they would reconvene at 7: 15 p.m. Chairman Shickle reconvened the regular meeting at 7: 15 p.m. CITIZEN COMMENTS (AGENDA ITEMS ONLY. THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC HEARING) Dan Busby, Red Bud District and President of the Senseny Glen Homeowners Association, appeared before the Board to address Channing Drive Phases, 9 & 10, Master Development Plan. He presented a one page document to the Board to which he would reference his comments. He expressed concern about the use of Senseny Glen as a construction entrance to the Fu-Shep Development. He also stated that he believed no notice was provided to the Homeowner's Association and therefore, the rezoning was void and the master plan could not be approved. He concluded by urging the Board of Supervisors not to approve Master Development Plan #05-04. Lennie Mather, Red Bud District, appeared before the Board to address the Channing Drive Issue. She asked several questions of the Board, which she would like to see answered: - Have the issue of the residential buffer and use of woodlands been resolved? - Have all of the issues about appropriate access been addressed? - What are the issues that have not been addressed by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority? - Why would the County allow phases 9 & 10 develop prior to phases 1 through 8? She concluded by submitting pictures of the trees that have been removed at the end of Canyon Drive. Marie Straub, Red Bud District, appeared before the Board to address the Channing Drive Issue. She stated that she believed Toll Brothers should have approached the Senseny Glen and Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 041 Bedford Village residents, but have not. She concluded by saying that the lawsuits by Toll Brothers did not relieve the Board's of its' responsibilities. Joseph Vacchio, Red Bud District, appeared before the Board to address the Channing Drive issue. He stated that his main concern was for the individuals ofthe community and he believed that the entrance being proposed on Canyon Road is in di rect violation of Chapter 5, Section 503.1 of the International Fire Code, which requires more than one fire entrance or access to property. He believed that the residents parking along Canyon Road would obstruct fire access. He concluded by asking the Board to review this with the local Fire Marshal and Building Code Official. Ruby Biedzycki, Red Bud District, appeared before the Board to discuss the Channing Drive issue. She asked why phases 9 & 10 were being built before phases 1 through 8. She concluded by saying that the Board of Supervisors were here to protect the citizens. Blaine Dunn, Red Bud District, appeared before the Board to discuss the Channing Drive Issue. He stated that the Board approved the original project back in 1999. He advised that Toll Brothers has made no effort to contact the residents. The original project called for Channing Drive to run from Senseny Road to Route 7. He concluded by asking the Board to help the citizens and make Toll Brothers cooperate with the 1999 plan. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' Comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #03-04 OF RACEY TRACT, SUBMITTED BY BLUE SPRINGS VIEW, LLC, TO REZONE 105.65 ACRES FROM RA (RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT TO RP (RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE) DISTRICT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 81. APPROXIMATELY Y, OF A MILE SOUTH OF FAIRFAX PIKE (ROUTE 277), EAST OF TOWN RUN LANE (ROUTE 1012), AND TO THE SOUTH OF RIDGEFIELD AVENUE (ROUTE 1065), ALONG EWING LANE. THIS PROPERTY IS SOUTH OF RIDGE FIELD SUBDIVISION, EAST OF STEPHENS RIDGE SUBDIVISION, AND WEST OF WOODSIDE SUBDIVISION, AND IS IDENTIFIED BY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN) 85-A-140 IN THE OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - APPROVED Planner II Jeremy Camp appeared before the Board on behalf ofthis application. He advised that this was a proposal to rezone 105 acres in the Opequon District from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. This rezoning was intended to accommodate 228 residential units with access from the new public road Town Run Lane. The applicant proposes upgrades to the intersections of Stickley Drive and Route 277 and Double Church Road and Route Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meetiug of 07/14/04 042 277. There are proffers for a pool, bath house, and tennis court. The traffic impact analysis states that the level of service for a majority ofthe roads would improve with the proffered improvements. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and recommended approval. The applicant has revised the proffer statement to address the Planning Commission's recommendations. He concluded by saying that the applicant was present to answer any questions the Board might have. Scott Plein, Blue Springs View, LLC, appeared before the Board on behalf of this application. He began by explaining that the proposed rezoning was totally within the Urban Development Area, as a previous request to expand the Urban Development Area to encompass the entire parcel had been denied. He stated that the applicant had met 37 times with staff, agencies, and residents of the adjoining neighborhood. He explained that a number of Woodside Estate residents had concerns because this proposed development would be connecting to it. He explained that the revised proffer statement contains 28 proffers. $40,000 has been proffered for signage, etc. He advised that a town green was created with a pool and sports court idea. He stated that he would like Woodside to be part of this community and vice versa; therefore, pool memberships would be offered to the Woodside community for a short time. He further stated that the homeowner association documents provide that no structure would be permitted within the 40 foot buffer. The development would also save 75-80% of the mature tree stand. There would also be a 200-foot agriculture buffer. The future homeowners would be notified that this development is next to an agriculture area and a Frederick County Sanitation Authority sewage lagoon. The County would have the right to lease the non-urban development area portion ofthis tract for a period of99 years. The time period would not ensue until the County had a use for this parcel. The applicant has received access off of Town Run Lane through the parcel owned by the Town of Stephens City, in return for the applicant closing down the old lagoon on the property. The amount of additional traffic to the existing roads would be 3%. Mr. Plein advised that the improvements to Stickley Drive would be completed prior the issuance of the first building permit and the improvements to Double Church Road would be completed prior to connecting the access to Woodside. There would be no construction traffic access through Woodside. He concluded by saying that this was an opportunity for a rezoning to mitigate the traffic that it causes. Supervisor Smith asked what types of houses were proposed for this development. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 043 Mr. Plein responded that he was proposing single-family dwellings with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet, similar to Woodside. Supervisor Ewing asked the applicant if engineering would be done in such a way as to ensure that drainage from this development would not impact Woodside and surrounding developments. Mr. Plein responded yes. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Gary Scott, Opequon District, stated that he could only see this creating a lot oftraffic and creating an even bigger problem than what currently exists. Herbert Painter, Opequon District, stated that this was a nice plan and the only problem he could see was traffic. He advised that he had to live with the traffic problem and stated that it was time to look at the existing traffic problem before adding more to it. Pete Forno, Opequon District and Woodside resident, asked why Ridgefield Avenue was omitted from the inter-connectivity of this proposal. He advised that he did not trust the traffic studies cited because he did not believe they took into account the other development in the area. He concluded by saying that the current infrastructure was not sufficient to handle this development. Al Marks, Opequon District and Woodside resident, stated that he initially objected to this development. He advised that he has issues and concerns about traffic and schools, but felt that the County and residents have a developer who listened and responded to the concerns expressed and would give "us what we need". He concluded by saying that he did not object to this proposed development. John Murphy, Opequon District and Ridgefield Avenue resident, stated that he was concerned about fire protection. There being no further public comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Mr. Plein responded to the traffic concerns by stating that he believed that he has done all he can with regard to the traffic. He advised that he would be making considerable improvements prior to development. Supervisor Ewing asked VDOT's representative ifhe concurred with Mr. Plein. Engineer Lineberry responded that the proposed improvements would improve the intersections of Route 277 /Stickley Drive and Route 277 !Double Church Road, but the Interstate 81 Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 044 interchange would get worse. He concluded by saying that, without the proposed improvements, the level of service on the roads would degrade. Supervisor Ewing stated that without the proposed development the traffic would worsen on Route 277, but the situation would improve with the proposed development, except for the Interstate 81 interchange. Supervisor Ewing then read the following statement: "I realize the traffic problems that exist on Rt. 277 and connector roads. These problems even affect the traffic in front of my house on Main Street in Stephens City. I would like to address the problems by saying I can see the problems becoming even greater until the $750,000.00 improvement proffers made by this developer are put in place. Improvements that must be in place before this developer can obtain his first building permit. This development will create an additional 3% traffic flow on Rt. 277 after build- out but will improve the traffic flow delays by 43%. There will always be problems with the traffic on Rt. 277 until the interchange is moved south and Rt. 277 is reconstructed; however, we cannot expect one developer, no matter who they might be, to provide remedies to all ofthe problems that were allowed to happen in the past. I am confident that this developer has gone beyond what should be expected of him. This developer has set standards that this Board should look for in any and all future developments. Beyond the road improvements offered, this developer has proffered the additional items: Closing of town lagoon in a professional and safe manner. I know, for a fact, if Stephens City were to close it they would not provide this quality a close out process. It is not required and they would only meet the minimum requirements because they cannot afford the associated closer costs. Yes, this close out is necessary by the developer in order to obtain necessary road frontage in the development of their project but it also gets rid of any eyesore and possible future health problem for surrounding residents. This developer has donated 25+ acres to the County. This property is available to the County at any time they desire to claim it. Weare constantly looking for school sites and this would definitely qualify for such. Ifthe County ever saw a need for a southern loop to alleviate traffic on Rt. 277, property is available through this property to accommodate such. This developer has met with most of the surrounding neighbors on numerous occasions and is providing improvements to their property (outside ofthe proffer statements). Improvements such as correcting drainage problems, paving drive-ways, allowing membership to the planned facilities Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 045 for those living in adjoining neighborhoods, and providing water and sewer where permitted by the Country. These are items not required by the County. There are other items that I have failed to mention; however, I think I have highlighted the major points. I am opposed to uncontrolled and shoddy growth; however, I find this development to be of quality and well planned and will be an asset to Frederick County. I know my motion will not be a popular one with the Opequon District residents; however, I am trying to do what I feel is in the best interest of the County. With that said, I will make a motion to support the Planning Commission's recommendation for the approval of rezoning application #03-04." The motion was seconded by Supervisor Dove and approved by the following recorded vote: Richard Shickle Nay Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #06-04 OF RUTHERFORD. LLC. SUBMITTED BY GREENWAY ENGINEERING. INC.. TO REZONE 13.4 ACRES FROM RA (RURAL AREAS); B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL); B3 (INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION); AND Ml (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICTS TO THE B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL) AND B3 (INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION) DISTRICTS. THE SUBJECT ACREAGE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHEAST OUADRANT OF THE INTERSTATE 81 INTERCHANGE AREA. WHICH IS NORTH AND ADJACENT TO MARTINSBURG PIKE (ROUTE 11 NORTH). AND EAST AND ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 81. AND IS IDENTIFIED BY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-l 00; 43-A-l 01; AND 43-A-lll IN THE STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - APPROVED Deputy Planning Director Chris Mohn appeared before the Board on behalf of this application. He advised that this was a request to rezone 13.4 acres located in the Stonewall Magisterial District from RA (Rural Areas) District, B2 (General Business) District, B3 (Industrial Transition) District, and MI (Light Industrial) District to B2 (Business General) District and B3 (Industrial Transition) District. He stated that the applicant is proposing to reconfigure current zoning district boundaries. The property is located in the Sewer Water Service Area and Northeast Land Use Plan. He advised that the categories are appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Policy and Land Use Plan. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and recommended approval. He concluded by saying that the applicant and VDOT were present to answer questions. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 046 Supervisor Tyler advised the she was disappointed in losing the M-l zoning and asked why that was happening. Mark Smith, Greenway Engineering, advised that when the original rezoning occurred the area was more industrial; however, things have changed in light of the Stephenson Village project. He went on to say that the property was losing the M-l, but was gaining B-3 (transitional industrial) zonmg. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board approved Rezoning #06-04 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CHANNING DRIVE. PHASES 9 & 10 - DENIED Director Lawrence appeared before the Board on behalf of this item. He advised that it had been presented to the Board at its May 26, 2004 meeting. During that meeting it was noted that there were a number of outstanding issues relative to zoning ordinance requirements, as well as discrepancies in the plan being reviewed by the Board and the plan being presented by the applicant. The Board voted to deny the master development plan. The County and the applicant went to court on June 15,2004. The Court found that the applicant could present a revised plan to the Board at the July 14, 2004 meeting, if it was received by the County on or before July 7, 2004. Director Lawrence advised that there were three significant outstanding issues: riparian buffer, residential buffer, and community center. He stated that only the riparian buffer had been addressed. He went on to say that staff felt the County and the applicant had reached agreement on a plan that could be adopted, but the plan received on July 7, 2004 was not it because it was short of satisfying the ordinance requirements. Director Lawrence explained that there were two significant deficiencies: the residential buffer and the community center. He explained that staff was asking the applicant Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 047 to provide 22.3 recreational units and that information must be shown on the master development plan. Supervisor Tyler asked if the Frederick County Sanitation Authority issues had been addressed. Director Lawrence responded that the review agencies comments had been satisfied, with the exception of Planning and Parks and Recreation. Ty Lawson, Lawson & Silek, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant. He reminded the Board of the presentation he gave at the May 26,2004 meeting, which showed the quality ofthe project as well as the extra trails. He advised that this proposed development was less dense than the original plan, which permitted 293 units. He stated that this proposal called for 220 units. He then cited the sections ofthe zoning ordinance that pertained to the master development plan requirements, more specifically the riparian buffer requirement, residential buffer requirement, and community center requirement. Mr. Lawson informed the Board that the applicant had been accused ofturning in plans that were not complete, which was not the case. He further advised that the applicant was annoyed by last minute changes that staff required to the plans. He went on to say that the applicant has been accused of trying to circumvent the approval process. Mr. Lawson presented the Board with a tabbed notebook that showed the submittal history of the project. He cited the section which depicted staff comments and the applicant's responses. Mr. Lawson then reviewed the chronological history of the project. He cited a June 11, 2004 letter from the County Attorney outlining the outstanding issues. The applicant prepared a revised master development plan, dated June 30, 2004, and hand delivered it to staff. This plan was revised and submitted to staff on July 7, 2004. He cited additional items that were required beyond the three outstanding issues. They included revisions to lot landscaping and revisions to the riparian buffer. Mr. Lawson stated that portions ofthe proffers have been xeroxed and attached to the master development plan. Mr. Lawson advised that the applicant received a letter dated July 6, 2004 that listed nine outstanding master development plan items. Mr. Lawson submitted that the applicant has fully complied with the outstanding issues. He stated that the riparian buffer was larger than 35 feet. The community center was shown on the plan as a rectangle. The plan also showed the proposed driveways and parking, along with additional text. With regard to the residential separation buffer, Mr. Lawson stated that the applicant had put in a 25-foot perimeter residential buffer and Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 048 emphasized that this was done per court order. Regarding the community center, staff advised the applicant that it was inappropriate and not clearly depicted and that the required recreational units were not attached. Mr. Lawson stated that the ordinance does not require the number ofrecreational units to be shown. He stated that he was also concerned about all ofthe talk about small lots, as the applicant does not have 5,000 square foot lots on their plans. He stated that the applicant was not required to show these recreational units and had submitted subdivision plans that confirm this. Mr. Lawson cited Dogwood Landing as an example of a small lot development that was not required to have community center. Mr. Lawson stated that it had been more than two years ago, at the beginning of this project, that the applicant appeared before the Board and offered to build all of Channing Drive and Canyon Drive. All the applicant asked for in return was access to this development through Morning Glory and Canyon Drive. This offer was not accepted. He stated that the applicant has worked with the community. He concluded by submitting, for the record, copies of all plans, comments, and subdivision plans that have been filed to date. Chairman Shickle asked Mr. Lawson, when he stated that he "assumed these were the ordinance sections being cited by staff', ifhe was unclear on the specific sections or ifhe did not mean for the statement to sound that way. Mr. Lawson responded that the applicant had satisfied the minimum requirements and had gone above and beyond what was required. Chairman Shickle asked Mr. Lawson ifhe was sure that staff was asking the applicant to comply with the ordinance sections that he cited during his presentation. Mr. Lawson responded by saying that the applicant had satisfied the riparian buffer requirement. He went on to say that he had not been given a memo that outlined the specific sections to which they must comply. Chairman Shickle asked Mr. Lawson, in light of not receiving a letter, if he had asked questions of staff regarding which sections addressed the outstanding issues. Mr. Lawson responded by saying that there had been a lot of communication back and forth, some of which cited specific sections. He felt the community center discussion had "gone far afield" from what was required in the ordinance. Mr. Lawson stated that the applicant was proposing a 50-foot tree save area on portions of the property in order to preserve existing mature trees. He Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 049 went on to say that the applicant had satisfied the ordinance and that the Board was the body that needs to confirm that. Supervisor Riley reminded the Board that the riparian buffer issue had been resolved; therefore, the Board was down to two issues to resolve. Supervisor Forrester referred to the proffer summary on page 7 of the Planning Staff report. Director Lawrence advised that the applicant had provided a copy of the proffers. Supervisor Forrester asked why the per lot monetary contribution was not on the plan. Director Lawrence advised that these issues were to be put on the master development plan so they did not have to be discussed again. He advised that this issue had been partially addressed. He went on to say that he sat down with Mr. Lawson on July 2,2004 to go over the revised plan. Director Lawrence felt there were issues to be clarified and he followed up the meeting with a letter citing the appropriate code sections. He went on to say that part of the discussion addressed the riparian buffer and he felt a lot ofthe other areas of discussion could be clarified ifthe applicant read the code sections. Director Lawrence thought this application could move on to the subdivision phase, if the community center and residential buffer issues could be resolved. He informed the Board that the Planning Commission recommended approval on May 19, 2004 but were hesitant to do so because they had outstanding concerns. He advised, when the Board approves this plan, staff would continue to work with the applicant to address outstanding comments. He concluded by saying if the applicant would address these two issues staff would be comfortable "getting this out of the Board's arena". Administrator Riley asked Director Lawrence if the 50-foot separation buffer met the intent of the ordinance. Director Lawrence responded that he had asked the applicant to use a natural buffer and advised that they could eliminate the 25- foot requirement and use a 50- foot buffer ifthey were using natural woodlands. Administrator Riley asked if there was a requirement for recreation units. Director Lawrence responded yes the applicant needed to provide the number recreational units required by the ordinance. Chairman Shickle advised that there was a lot of discrepancy and asked how these issues could be put to rest. He asked, if the applicant submitted a plan, could the County hold them to it. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 050 Director Lawrence responded that the zoning ordinance says if an applicant uses single- family small lots then they have to show a community center. He advised that this master development plan revision would be for single family small lots. Chairman Shickle asked Mr. Lawson to respond. Mr. Lawson advised that he appreciated Director Lawrence's comments regarding the proffers. The original master development plan had a summary of the proffers and he advised that the applicant could affix the proffers to the revised master development plan. Mr. Lawson went on to say that the buffer text was not clear; however, he believed it was clear on the plan. He stated that whatever the Board wanted on the plan, the applicant would put it on there. He advised that he would scratch the 25- foot buffer language from the plan this evening. With regard to the recreation units, Mr. Lawson believed staffwas not referring to the master development plan requirements, but rather zoning ordinance section 165-64 Recreation Facilities. Director Lawrence advised that the applicant could not opt out of the requirement, even if the proposed small lot subdivision lots would exceed 5,000 square feet. He went on to say that if the applicant had issues with the interpretation ofthe zoning ordinance, then that issue needed to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Lawson again cited Dogwood Lane as a development similar to the applicant's. He stated that for master development plan purposes he believed the applicant had more than complied. Chairman Shickle stated that there did not appear to be any issues that could not be worked out. Supervisor Forrester advised that she had all of the confidence in Director Lawrence's interpretation ofthe ordinance and ifthere were outstanding issues the Board had to be comfortable with his recommendation. Upon a motion by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Board denied Master Development Plan 05-04 based upon the applicant's failure to meet the requirements ofthe Zoning Ordinance. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 051 W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda 1. Tyler Aye Supervisor Forrester stated that she hoped the applicant would speak with the people involved in this project. DISCUSSION - SIC GROUPS IN B2 ZONING DISTRICT - SENT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING Planner I Cheran appeared before the Board on behalf of this item. He advised that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee at its April 29, 2004 meeting recommended to exclude certain SIC uses from the B-2 (Business General) District. The Committee felt that some of uses might not be appropriate or meet the intent ofthe B-2 Zoning District. Planner I Cheran stated that staff supports the Committee's recommendation. The proposed amendments were presented to the Planning Commission as a discussion item, with no issues raised. They are being presented to the Board for discussion and clarification. Chairman Shickle asked if staff was only talking about subgroups within the SIC uses. Planner I Cheran responded yes. He advised that many of the uses were not being totally excluded, but would be moved to more appropriate zoning districts. He concluded by saying that it was staffs intent to take this to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and subsequently to the Board for public hearing and adoption. Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board approved sending the proposed amendments through the public hearing process. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda 1. Tyler Aye DISCUSSION - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. SUBDIVISION OF LAND. SECTION 144-17 L - SENT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING Planner I Cheran appeared before the Board on behalf of this item. He advised that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee at its April 29; 2004 meeting recommended a change to Subdivision Ordinance Section 144-1 7L. Staff identified a potential discrepancy in the language regarding residential curb and gutter requirements. The proposed amendment would Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 052 clarifY that residential developments with lot sizes of 15,000 square feet would require curb and gutter. The proposed amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission and have been referred to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. Planner I Cheran reminded the Board that this was a clarification only and not a new requirement. Upon a motion by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Board approved sending the proposed amendment through the public hearing process. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Supervisor Tyler advised that the development impact model was coming right along and she was excited about it. There will be a training seminar with Tischler & Associates in the near future. There was discussion concerning the Board's ability to see this model in action, prior to the formal modeling presentation. Staff advised that they would try to come up with some middle ground, which would allow the Board to see this model in a less formal setting. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Vice-Chairman Van Osten asked for an update on the status ofthe city/county meetings. Chairman Shickle responded that he had not met with Council President Charlie Gaynor to discuss future topics. He advised that he would try to meet with him and schedule something by early fall. Supervisor Ewing stated that he was confused about some ofthe transfer requests that were reviewed this evening. He advised that he would like to see them go through the Finance Committee before coming to the Board. Administrator Riley advised that these requests happened every year at the close of the previous fiscal year. He went on to say that the Finance Committee meeting was canceled in June, Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04 053 but they would normally come through the Finance Committee. He concluded by saying that this was an unusual circumstance. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR EWING, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR SMITH, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (9:55 P.M.) \2-2J ~~~~-..J Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 07/14/04